Delhi District Court
State vs Dinesh on 29 January, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAURABH GOYAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS01, DWARKA COURTS,
DELHI
State Vs. : Dinesh & Ors.
FIR No : 196/2022
U/s : 33/52 Delhi Excise Act
P.S. : PALAM VILLAGE
1. Criminal Case No. : 24376/2024
2. Date of commission of offence : 08.05.2022
3. Date of institution of the case : 10.07.2024
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name of accused & parentage : 1)Dinesh S/o Sh. Ved Ram
2)Mahesh Singh
S/o Pitambar Singh
6. Offence complained or proved : Section 33 Delhi Excise Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 10.01.2025
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 29.01.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Dinesh and Mahesh Singh are facing trial for offence U/S
33/53 of Delhi Excise Act with the allegations that on 08.05.2022 at about 3:15
PM near Palam Railway Road, Reservation Centre, Palam, within jurisdiction
of PS Palam Village, the accused Dinesh was found in possession of 158
FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:14:16 +0530
2
quarter bottles Mast Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only,
each measuring 180 ML which were kept in one bag on the Pedestrain of
Scooty vehicle i.e. DL6SBB4441 make Activa and 51 quarter bottles Mast
Santra Masaledar Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only, each measuring 180 ml
in the Dicky of the said Scooty and 85 quarter bottles of Mast Santra Masaledar
Desi Sharab for sale in Haryana only, each measuring 180 ml which were kept
in one bag which were carrying on accused shoulder. Further, accused Mahesh
Singh is facing trial for offence U/S 33/52 Delhi Excise Act being the owner of
the above said vehicle, without any permit or license. The criminal law was set
into motion by registration of FIR against the accused person and investigation
into the case began. After completion of the investigation, the present charge
sheet was filed for conducting trial of the accused person for the alleged
offence.
2. After taking cognizance of the offence, the copies of chargesheet was
supplied to the accused person in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The
arguments on charges were heard and charge for offence U/S 33 Delhi Excise
Act was framed against accused Dinesh on 12.08.2024 and for offence U/s
33/53 of Delhi Excise Act was framed against the accused Mahesh Singh. The
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution
evidence was led.
3. In order to prove allegations against accused persons, prosecution has
examined three prosecution witnesses.
4. The proceedings U/S 294 Cr.P.C. were conducted wherein accused
FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
Digitally signed by
SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:14:22 +0530
3
persons admitted the factum of registration of FIR No. 196/2022 alongwith
certificate u/s 65 B of IEA as Ex. A1 (colly), GD No. 0058A dt. 08.05.2022 as
Ex A2, GD No. 0044A dt. 08.05.2022 as Ex A3, GD NO. 0043A dt. 08.05.2022
as Ex A4, RC NO. 121/21/22 dt. 19.05.2022 as Ex A5 and Excise report as Ex.
A6, pursuant to the admission made by accused of these documents, witnesses
at Sr. No. 1, 2 & 3 were dropped from the list of witnesses.
5. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have
supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It
has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the
prosecution witnesses, offence U/S 33 of Delhi Excise Act has been proved
beyond doubt.
6. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has stated that there is no
legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons and that the accused
persons have been falsely implicated by the police officials and even recovery
of illicit liquor has not been proved from the possession of accused persons as
no public witnesses were joined by the police officials during investigation and
recovery proceedings. It is further argued that due to the lacunae and
incoherency in the story of the prosecution, the accused persons be given the
benefit of doubt and are therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
7. Prior to delving into the contentions raised by the prosecution and
defence, let us discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses in
brief.
8. PW4 Ct. Narender Singh is the complainant in this case and has deposed
that on 08.05.2023 he was posted as Ct. at PS Palam Village. On that day he
FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:14:28 +0530
4
along with Ct. Sandeep were on beat patrolling duty at Beat No.7 Sadh Nagar,
on Govt. Bike bearing No. DL ISAB 0690. At around 3:00 PM when they
reached near Railway Line near Reservation Counter, one secret informer came
and informed about one person on scooty will come there with illicit liquor who
can be apprehended red handed if raided. Thereafter, they started checking the
two wheelers there. At around 3:15 PM, one scooty bearing NO. DL 6SBB
4441 came there and upon pointing by the secret informer, they stopped him.
The driver of the scooty was having one blue bag on his shoulder and kept one
black bag on the pedestrian of the scooty and upon inquiry, he could not give
any satisfactory reply and upon checking the said bags it was found containing
illicit liquor. Thereafter, they shared the information with the DO Concerned
and HC Anil Kumar reached at the spot and they handed over the accused
alongwith the recovered case property along with the scooty and said person to
HC Anil Kumar/IO. Upon inquiry the name of the said person was revealed as
Dinesh S/o Sh. Ved Ram. Thereafter, IO recorded his statement i.e. Ex. PW1/A.
On checking the said blue bag, it was found containing 85 quarter bottles of
Mast Santra for sale in Haryana Only 180 ML Each and 158 quarter bottles of
Mast Santra for sale in Haryana only 180 ML each were recovered from the
black colour bag, 51 quarter bottles of Mast Santra For sale in Haryana were
recovered from the dicky of the said scooty. Total 294 quarter bottles of illicit
liquor were recovered from the said person. One quarter bottles each i.e. from
blue bag, black bag and from dicky were taken out as sample and and mouth of
the samples were tied with white cloth and sealed it with the seal of ‘AK’ and
total 3 samples bottles were taken out and all the samples bottles were kept in
one white cloth pullanda. The remaining case property i.e. 157 quarter bottles
FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:14:34 +0530
5
were kept in the black bag 84 quarter bottles were kept in blue bag and 50
quarter bottles were kept in one white katta along with the blue bag and mouth
of the said katta and bag was tied with one white cloth and was sealed with the
seal of AK. The case property were taken into possession vide seizure memo
Ex. PW1/B bearing signatures at point C. IO filled Form M29 i.e. Ex.PW1/C.
The seal after use was handed over to Ct. Sandeep vide seal handing over memo
Ex. PW1/1 bearing signatures at point B. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka/Tehrir
Ex. PW1/D and handed over the same to him and he got the present case FIR
registered and returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and
rukka to IO. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter, IO
seized the scooty vide Ex. PW1/F. IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.
PW1/G and conducted the personal search of the accused vide Ex. PWI/H and
recording disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW1/I. Thereafter, they left
the spot and returned back to the PS and IO had deposited the case property
with the MHCM Concerned. During investigation IO recorded his statement U/s
161 Cr. PC. Accused Dinesh was correctly identified by the witness in the
court. The identity of case property is not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel.
9. PW2 Ct. Sandeep was accompanying PW4 on the day of incident and
has also deposed on the same lines as of PW4, thus, testimony of PW2 is not
being reproduced to avoid repetition.
10. PW1 HC Anil Kr is the IO in this case. He has deposed that on
08.05.2023 he was posted as HC at PS Palam Village. On that day on receipt of
DD NO. 58 A, he went to the spot i.e. Palam Railway Road, near Palam
Reservation Centre, where Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Narender met him and handed
FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
Digitally signed by
SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:14:46 +0530
6
over to him custody of one person along with one scooty bearing NO.
DL6SBB4441 and one blue bag and one black bag which was stated to be
recovered from the said persons. Thereafter, he recorded statement of Ct.
Narender i.e. Ex. PW1/A. On checking the said blue bag, it was found
containing 85 quarter bottles of Mast Santra for sale in Haryana Only 180 ML.
Each and 158 quarter bottles of Mast Santra for sale in Haryana only 180 ML
each were recovered from the black colour bag, 51 quarter bottles of Mast
Santra For sale in Haryana were recovered from the dicky of the said scooty.
Total 294 quarter bottles of illicit liquor were recovered from the said person.
One quarter bottles each i.e. from blue bag, black bag and from dicky were
taken out as sample and and mouth of the samples were tied with white cloth
and sealed it with the seal of ‘AK’ and total 3 samples quarter bottles were taken
out and all the samples bottles were kept in one white cloth pullanda. The
remaining case property i.e. 157 quarter bottles were kept in the black bag 84
quarter bottles were kept in blue bag and 50 quarter bottles were kept in one
white katta along with the blue bag and mouth of the said katta and bag was tied
with one white cloth and was sealed with the seal of AK. The case property
were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. He filled Form M
29 i.e. Ex.PW1/C. The seal after use was handed over to Ct. Sandeep vide seal
handing over memo Ex. PW1/1. Thereafter, he prepared rukka/Tehrir Ex.
PW1/D and handed over the same to Ct. Narender and he got the present case
FIR registered and returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR
and rukka to him. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/E. Thereafter,
he seized the scooty vide Ex. PW1/F and arrested the accused vide arrest memo
Ex. PW1/G and conducted the personal search of the accused vide Ex. PW1/H
FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
Digitally signed
by SAURABH
SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:14:53 +0530
7
and recording disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW1/I. Thereafter, they
left the spot and returned back to the PS and he had deposited the case property
with the MHCM concerned. During investigation he recorded statement of
witnesses U/s 161 Cr. PC. In the meanwhile he got transferred from the
concerned PS thus, he handed over the case file to the MHCR. Accused Dinesh
was correctly identified by the witness in the court. The identity of case
property is not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel.
11. PW3 ASI Ratan Singh Meena deposed that on 22.09.2023 he was
posted as ASI at PS Palam Village. On that day, further investigation of present
case was marked to him. He served notice U/s 41 A Cr.P.C i.e. Ex. PW3/A
upon the registered owner namely accused Mahesh and he interrogated him and
prepared report Ex. PW3/B. He released him upon furnishing of pabandinama
Ex. PW3/C. He also obtained the Excise Result and thereafter, he was
transferred from the concerned PS, thus, he handed over the present case file to
MHCR.
12. PW 5 HC Subhram deposed that on 20.10.2023 he was posted as HC at
PS Palam Village. On that day further investigation of present case was marked
to him. As the investigation of the present case had already been completed,
thus, he filed the charge sheet before the court. Thereafter, upon completion of
prosecution evidence, the mater was listed for recording of statement of accused
persons.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
Digitally signed by
SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:14:59 +0530FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
8
13. Statement of the accused persons Dinesh and Mahesh Singh under Section
281/313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 10.01.2025 in which all the incriminating
circumstances appearing in evidence were put to them. The accused persons
controverted and denied the allegations levelled against them and stated that
they have been falsely implicated in the case. Accused persons further opted to
not lead evidence in their defence.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
14. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions
made by both the parties. In the present case, the Accused Dinesh has been
indicted for the offence U/S 33 of Delhi Excise Act and accused Mahesh Singh
is facing the trial for offnece punishable U/S 33 /52 of Delhi Excise Act. In
order to prove the liability of accused Dinesh under Section 33 of the Delhi
Excise Act, the prosecution must establish the fulfilment of all the essential
ingredients of the offence. The contents of Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act
are reproduced as follows:
“33. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport,
manufacture, possession, sale, etc.
1. Whoever, in contravention of provision of this Act or of any
rule or order made or notification issued or of any licence, permit
or pass, granted under this Act–
a. manufactures, imports, exports, transports or removes any
intoxicant;
b. constructs or works any manufactory or warehouse;
c. bottles any liquor for purposes of sale;
d. uses, keeps or has in his possession any material, still, utensil,
implement or apparatus, whatsoever, for the purpose of
manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy or tari;
e. possesses any material or film either with or without the
Government logo or logo of any State or wrapper or any other
FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:15:05 +0530
9thing in which liquor can be packed or any apparatus or implement
or machine for the purpose of packing any liquor;
f. sells any intoxicant, collects, possesses or buys any intoxicant
beyond the prescribed quantity, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months
but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall
not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to one
lakh rupees.”
15. It is also significant to note that Section 52 of Delhi Excise Act lays down
a rebuttable presumption which goes as follows:
“Section 52. Presumption as to commission of offence in certain
cases:
1. In prosecution under section 33, it shall be presumed, until the
contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the
offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant,
still, utensil, implement or apparatus, for the possession of which
he is unable to account satisfactorily.
2. ………”
16. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to
prove it’s case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence
and that the law does not permit the court to punish the accused on the
basis of moral conviction or on account of suspicion alone. Also, it is well
settled that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in
the prosecution story and such doubt entitles him to acquittal. The words
“for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily” used in
Section 52(1) of the Delhi Excise Act clearly reveal that as a prerequisite
for the presumption under the aforesaid provision being raised against the
accused, it is imperative for the prosecution to successfully establish the
FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:15:11 +0530
10
recovery of the said alleged articles from the possession of the accused. It is
only after the prosecution has proved the possession of the alleged articles
by the accused, that the accused can be called upon to account for the same.
However, as discussed hereinafter, careful scrutiny of the evidence placed
on record brings to light the fact that the case of the prosecution is fraught
with multiple inconsistencies, rendering the prosecution version incredible,
owing to which, no presumption, as provided for under Section 52 of the
Act, can be raised against the accused persons in the present case.
i). Doubtful seziure memo and form M29
17. A careful reading of the testimony of PW1, PW 2 and PW4 reflects
that even before the Rukka was prepared, the case property i.e. illicit liquor was
seized vide Seizure memo Ex. PW1/B and then, Rukka was prepared and
thereafter, upon registration of FIR, PW1 prepared the spot map and conducted
further investigation. The narration of such a chronology of events leads to the
irresistible conclusion that the seizure memo of the liquor was prepared, prior to
registration of the FIR. Accordingly, it follows that the number of the FIR could
not have been mentioned on the seizure memo as the same was prepared prior to
registration of FIR however, quite surprisingly, perusal of the seizure memo
reflects the mentioning of the full particulars of the FIR thereupon, which fact
has remained unexplained on behalf of the prosecution and no explanation from
the prosecution is forthcoming as to how the FIR number surfaced on the
document which was prepared prior to the registration of the FIR. This fact
casts a fatal doubt upon the case of prosecution.
Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29 16:15:17 +0530 FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh 11
18. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in Lalit v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127,
wherein it was observed in paragraph 5 as follows:
“…Learned counsel for the state concedes that immediately after
the arrest of the accused, his personal search was effected and the
memo Ex.PW11/D was prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the
knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the
ruqa Ex.PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration
of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW 11/G was recorded.
The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O.
after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came
to the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him
at the spot by a constable. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R.
No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch
plan which had come into existence before the registration of the
case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that
the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the
number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what
circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No.
which had already come into existence before the registration of
the case. These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt,
in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged
to have been recovered from the accused…”
19. The aforesaid ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi squarely applies
to the facts in the present case as well, which leads to only one of the either
inference, that is, either the FIR was registered prior to the alleged recovery of
the illicit liquor, or that the said document was prepared later in point of time. In
either of the scenarios, a dent is created in the version of the prosecution, the
benefit of which must accrue to the accused.
20. Since in the present case, all the witnesses are police personnel and the
FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:15:23 +0530
12
necessary safeguards in the investigation have not been followed by the IO, I
am of the view that the possibility of false implication of the accused persons
under the provisions of Excise Act cannot be ruled out at the instance of the
police.
ii). The nonjoining of any independent / public witness.
21. It is evident from the record that no public witness to the recovery of the
liquor has been either cited in the list of prosecution witnesses or has been
examined by the prosecution. As apparent from record, no notice was served to
public persons upon their refusal to join investigation in the case. Thus, it is not
the case of prosecution that public witnesses were not available at the spot.
However, from a perusal of the record, no serious efforts for joining public
witnesses appears to have been made by the investigating officer. These facts
are squarely covered by the ruling of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the
case titled as, Anoop Joshi v State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein it
was observed as under:
“…18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it
should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made
to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence
that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we
find that shops were open and one or two shopkeepers could have
been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery
being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had
declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on
taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not
have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their
legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is
an offence under the IPC…” Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:15:28 +0530FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
13
22. Further, in a case law reported as Roop Chand v. The State of Haryana,
1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:
“…The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of
the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses that some witnesses from the public were
available and they were asked to join the investigation. The
explanation furnished by the prosecution is that the independent
witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do
so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between
them and the petitioner…”
23. It is well settled principle of the law that the investigating agency should
join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they
are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of
doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also as stated by PW1, PW2
& PW4 , admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of
recovery but they did not join in the investigation. This explanation does not
inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses
examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons
contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public
refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a
crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a
person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a
person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had
refused to join the investigation, the IO must have proceeded against them
under the relevant provision of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is
suggestive of the fact that the explanation for nonjoining the witnesses from the
FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
SAURABH Digitally signed by
SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:15:34 +0530
14
public is an afterthought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken
together make the prosecution case highly doubtful.
24. In fact, in this regard, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C also accords assistance to
the aforesaid finding, by providing that whenever any search is made, two or
more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality are required to be
made witnesses to such search, and the search is to be made in their presence.
Under Section 100(8) Cr.P.C, refusal to be a witness can render such non
willing public witness liable for criminal prosecution. Despite the availability of
such a provision, no sincere attempts were made by the police to join witnesses
in the present case. Therefore, noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of
law, even though public witnesses were easily available in the vicinity, makes
the prosecution version highly doubtful.
25. This Court is conscious of the legal position that nonjoining of
independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the
prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of
Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, evidence in every case is to be sifted
through in light of the varied facts and circumstances of each individual case.
As discussed above and hereinafter, the testimony of the police witnesses in the
present case is not worthy of credit. In such a situation, evidence of an
independent witness would have rendered the muchneeded corroborative value,
to the otherwise uncompelling case of the prosecution.
iii). Possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating officer.
26. As per the prosecution story, after preparing seizure of the case property
and the samples of illicit liquor with seal of ‘AK’, the aforesaid seal was not
FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
Digitally signed by
SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:15:40 +0530
15
handed over any public witness. This fact cannot be ignored that PW2 Ct.
Sandeep was a recovery witness and had apprehended the accused and was
subsequently, a part of the investigation in the present case. Thus, the seal was
not handed over to any independent witness. There is nothing on record to
suggest that PW1 had made efforts to handover the seal to any independent
witness. In such a factual backdrop, since the seal was given to prosecution
witness, the seal remained with the police officials of the same police station
and therefore, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be
ruled out. Moreover, it is not even the case of the prosecution that the seal was
not within the reach of the IO and thus, there was no scope of tampering of case
property.
27. In this regard, judgment in case titled as Ramji Singh v State of Haryana
2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452, may be adverted to, wherein it was observed
in paragraph 7 that:
“…The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to
avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the
case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory,
the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in
the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband
and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out. In the
present case, the seal of Investigating OfficerHoshiar Singh
bearing impression HS was available with Maha Singh, a junior
police official and that of Deputy Superintendent of Police
remained with Deputy Superintendent of Police himself. Therefore,
the possibility of tampering with seals as well as seized contraband
and samples cannot be ruled out…”
28. Similarly, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Safiullah v. State, (1993) 49
DLT 193, had observed:
FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29 16:15:52 +0530 16
“9. … The seal after use were kept by the police officials themselves
therefore the possibility of tempering with the contents of the sealed
parcel cannot be ruled out. It was very essential for the prosecution
to have established from stage to stage the fact that the sample was
not tempered with. The prosecution could have proved from the
CFSL form itself and from the road certificate as to what articles
were taken from the Malkahana. Once a doubt is created in the
preservation of the sample the benefit of the same should go to the
accused…”
29. It is no where the case of the prosecution that the seal after use was
handed over to any of the independent witness. In view of discussion made
above, the conclusion which can be arrived at is that the seal remained with the
Investigating Officer or with the other member of the raiding party therefore the
possibility of interference or tempering of the seal and the contents of the parcel
cannot be ruled out. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the possibility of
misuse of seal and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
30. In view of the discussion made above, it is clear that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against the accused Dinesh
and Mahesh, more specifically, the recovery of the alleged illicit liquor is not
proved beyound reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court hereby accords the
benefit of doubt to the accused persons and holds the accused persons
namely Dinesh and Mahesh Singh not guilty of the offences charged with.
Thus, the accused persons namely Dinesh stands acquitted for offence U/s
33 of Delhi Excise Act and accused Mahesh Singh stands acquitted of the
offence U/s 33 /52 of Delhi Excise Act.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29 16:15:59 +0530 FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh 17
31. The bail bonds, if any furnished persons at the time of commencement of
trail stands cancelled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall
be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands
cancelled. Case property if any, shall be disposed of after expiration of period to
assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate
Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed SAURABH by SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29 16:16:04 +0530 Announced in the open court on (Saurabh Goyal) this day i.e. 29th January, 2025 JMFC01 South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears
my signatures.
Digitally signed
SAURABH by SAURABH
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.01.29
16:16:08 +0530
(Saurabh Goyal)
JMFC01 South West District, Dwarka,
New Delhi
FIR No. 196/2022 St. Vs. Dinesh
[ad_1]
Source link